In the tumultuous era of early doctrinal conflict, the church did not rely on Scripture alone as its fortress of truth. Alongside the written word, the Fathers invoked a “rule of faith”—a living, apostolic tradition transmitted through the succession of bishops and embodied in the worship and teaching of the universal church. This tradition, anchored in the faith of the apostles, served as a visible and authoritative witness against heretical innovations, preserving the unity and purity of the gospel across time and place.
The Rule of Faith and Apostolic Succession
Alongside their appeal to Scripture, early church Fathers—particularly Irenaeus and Tertullian—placed significant weight on what they called the rule of faith (regula fidei), the orally transmitted tradition of apostolic teaching. This tradition, inseparably linked with the continuous succession of bishops from the apostles to their own time, resided especially in the great apostolic churches: Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and above all, Rome. In their eyes, the episcopate was the conduit of tradition, and both were bulwarks against the corrupting influence of heresy.
Irenaeus confronted the Gnostics’ esoteric “secret tradition” with the open, public tradition of the catholic church, preserved visibly and audibly in the teaching of every legitimate church. He particularly emphasized Rome as a central symbol of doctrinal unity. For those seeking the truth, he said, the apostolic churches offered accessible evidence: bishops ordained by apostles, and their successors who had neither taught nor heard of the heresies in question. He boldly imagined a Christianity without written Scripture, but not without living tradition—citing even barbarian tribes who knew the gospel “without parchment or ink,” having it written in their hearts.
Tertullian’s Prescription Against Heretics
Tertullian’s argument against heresy reached a powerful climax in his work De Praescriptione Haereticorum. There, he denied heretics even the right to appeal to Scripture, asserting that the Bible was born in the church and can only be rightly understood within her. He pointed to the unbroken succession of bishops in the apostolic churches as proof of fidelity, in contrast to the instability and novelty of sectarian groups.
“Go,” he challenged the heretics, “visit the apostolic churches. In Achaia, you have Corinth. In Macedonia, Philippi and Thessalonica. In Asia, Ephesus. And near Italy, Rome—the church from which we [Africans] derive our origin. There, the very chairs of the apostles still preside; their letters are publicly read, bearing their voice and likeness. How blessed is the church where the apostles poured out all their doctrine with their blood.”
Strengths and Limits of Patristic Appeals to Tradition
Such appeals to tradition carried weight because these Fathers stood only a few generations removed from the apostles. Irenaeus himself had known Polycarp, who had heard the voice of John. The memory of apostolic teaching was still alive. Yet this very proximity demands caution. The authority they attributed to tradition must not be transferred without qualification to later developments unsupported by Scripture.
Moreover, these early Fathers were not blind adherents of episcopal authority. Irenaeus opposed Bishop Victor of Rome. Tertullian, in his later Montanist phase, openly disputed church customs, asserting a principle that resonates with Protestant conviction: truth, not custom, should prevail. “Christ called Himself the Truth, not the Custom,” he wrote. “Heresies are condemned not by their novelty but by their opposition to truth. Even an ancient custom can be a long-standing error.”
His disciple Cyprian—who often treated “Scripture” and “Catholic” as interchangeable—likewise resisted Rome’s position on heretical baptism. Echoing Tertullian, he declared: “Custom without truth is merely the antiquity of error.”
Alexandrian Pluralism and the Nature of Tradition
In Alexandria, a more fluid understanding of tradition emerged. While the παράδοσις ἀποστολική (apostolic tradition) remained a central concept, it sometimes denoted Scripture itself rather than an independent stream of oral transmission. Clement of Alexandria famously wrote: “He who departs from church tradition becomes like a man transformed into a beast by Circe’s spell—no longer God’s servant but prey to his own will.”
Yet the Alexandrians also entertained many views that would later be rejected as heretical. Their use of tradition was creative, speculative, and at times symbolic—less a rigid standard than a theological grammar shaped by the Logos.
Scripture and Tradition: One Gospel in Two Forms
At root, the apostolic tradition and the written Scriptures were not divergent but convergent. The oral teaching of the apostles and their written testimony conveyed the same gospel. The church received this message through both word and writing and faithfully passed it down through the generations.
Thus, when the early Fathers attributed supreme authority to both Scripture and tradition, they were not positing two competing sources, but affirming one truth transmitted in two complementary forms. As Paul himself wrote: “Hold fast the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). The gospel is one, whether preached aloud or recorded with ink.
